HARWOOD,SURJAN & NOW WILLITS

[Macca19]

I think the other guy you are thinking of is Bowen Lockwood,(he had the ability but a major injury cost him).Port wanted centrals to play him in the backline and centrals refused to so the power sent him to the magpies, and surprise surprise he ended up playing up forward for them (go figure), not too many games in the backline.

Actually, Lockwood spent all except one match playing at CHB for the Magpies.

As the list of players has shown, its not just Power players changing clubs.

Quite simply, its the Power/Crows paying their wages, its the Power/Crows investments. If they wish to request a certain player be played in a certain position then they can. If one of the clubs has drafted a player they wish to play as a key forward and he then gets played in defence all year, then of course they have the right to say something about it.

If the SANFL clubs dont like it, then they should not take part in the mini draft and not take their share of the AFL dividend.

[bayman]

If the SANFL clubs dont like it, then they should not take part in the mini draft and not take their share of the AFL dividend.

afl dividend since when has port paid one out ??

[Macca19]

If the SANFL clubs dont like it, then they should not take part in the mini draft and not take their share of the AFL dividend.

afl dividend since when has port paid one out ??

Ah yet another popular misconception.

The Power has paid a dividend back to the SANFL in every season except 1 from memory. In any case, for the past 5-6 years, both the Crows and the Power pay a set fee back to the SANFL, regardless of whether they make a profit or loss. Port has paid around $250k back to the SANFL in each of those seasons. This year it is likely to raise to around $400k now that the AFL licence fee has been fully paid.

Seriously, its not hard to find these things out

[Santos L Helper]

these are 3 players that have changed sanfl clubs (harwood twice), i know there is at least one more, (who i think was a crows player) but basically is the common denominator port ?? , perhaps port (chocko) is having or trying to have too much say, we all know chocko coaches/encourages the port players playing at sanfl level during the 1/4 & 3/4 time breaks

firstly, is it that port have or is trying to have too much to say on game day ?
2ndly, & should he or any afl coach be allowed to do that
3rdly, unless i'm wrong we (the sanfl) own port & adel, so we (sanfl) should be telling/dictating to them not the other way around

bayman says that all clubs should tell both teams to field their players elsewhere as it is no good for anyone & if you dont believe me look at centrals over the last few years very little impact from afl players & their unity & success is 2nd to none

& alledgedly boak as well

Why shouldn't their AFL coach have some say in proceedings? And to say it's only Port is ludicrous and very typical of a Glenelg supporter. Do you forget the problems Cornes had whilst coaching Adelaide? I thought so! He couldn't get Nunan, Craig etc to put blokes in positions he wanted, and actually said that the Magpies were the easiest to deal with.

If you're going to bag Port, at least do some research and get SOME of the facts right!

[bayman]

these are 3 players that have changed sanfl clubs (harwood twice), i know there is at least one more, (who i think was a crows player) but basically is the common denominator port ?? , perhaps port (chocko) is having or trying to have too much say, we all know chocko coaches/encourages the port players playing at sanfl level during the 1/4 & 3/4 time breaks

firstly, is it that port have or is trying to have too much to say on game day ?
2ndly, & should he or any afl coach be allowed to do that
3rdly, unless i'm wrong we (the sanfl) own port & adel, so we (sanfl) should be telling/dictating to them not the other way around

bayman says that all clubs should tell both teams to field their players elsewhere as it is no good for anyone & if you dont believe me look at centrals over the last few years very little impact from afl players & their unity & success is 2nd to none

& alledgedly boak as well

Why shouldn't their AFL coach have some say in proceedings? And to say it's only Port is ludicrous and very typical of a Glenelg supporter. Do you forget the problems Cornes had whilst coaching Adelaide? I thought so! He couldn't get Nunan, Craig etc to put blokes in positions he wanted, and actually said that the Magpies were the easiest to deal with.

If you're going to bag Port, at least do some research and get SOME of the facts right!

i'm actually talking about during the game & i agree craigs use of robran in particular was ordinary, but it should be commomsense the afl coach during the week should talk to the sanfl counterpart & not demand a player in a certain position but ask if he would try it if it doesn't affect the balance of his team & for what it is worth i do not barrack for the crows my team in the afl is what my money is on, the only team i barrack for is glenelg, but i still think it is wrong
for any afl coach to talk to players during games (at breaks in games)

[Santos L Helper]

these are 3 players that have changed sanfl clubs (harwood twice), i know there is at least one more, (who i think was a crows player) but basically is the common denominator port ?? , perhaps port (chocko) is having or trying to have too much say, we all know chocko coaches/encourages the port players playing at sanfl level during the 1/4 & 3/4 time breaks

firstly, is it that port have or is trying to have too much to say on game day ?
2ndly, & should he or any afl coach be allowed to do that
3rdly, unless i'm wrong we (the sanfl) own port & adel, so we (sanfl) should be telling/dictating to them not the other way around

bayman says that all clubs should tell both teams to field their players elsewhere as it is no good for anyone & if you dont believe me look at centrals over the last few years very little impact from afl players & their unity & success is 2nd to none

& alledgedly boak as well

Why shouldn't their AFL coach have some say in proceedings? And to say it's only Port is ludicrous and very typical of a Glenelg supporter. Do you forget the problems Cornes had whilst coaching Adelaide? I thought so! He couldn't get Nunan, Craig etc to put blokes in positions he wanted, and actually said that the Magpies were the easiest to deal with.

If you're going to bag Port, at least do some research and get SOME of the facts right!

i'm actually talking about during the game & i agree craigs use of robran in particular was ordinary, but it should be commomsense the afl coach during the week should talk to the sanfl counterpart & not demand a player in a certain position but ask if he would try it if it doesn't affect the balance of his team & for what it is worth i do not barrack for the crows my team in the afl is what my money is on, the only team i barrack for is glenelg, but i still think it is wrong
for any afl coach to talk to players during games (at breaks in games)

Apart from not understanding most of your post due your misuse of the English language, I've managed to decipher that you actually think that it's NOT just Port, but both AFL clubs who have caused the isssue. I know for a FACT that some SANFL coaches have refused to take calls from their AFL counterparts. So what option do they have? Plus, how do you know that any advice given on a match day isn't just self esteem building stuff for the player and not criticism of his local coach? The ropes don't allow ytou to get close enough to hear what's being said in a quiet tone.

This kind of ruins your assertion with your original post.

[Coorong]

.,it is not right
for any afl coach to talk to players during games (at breaks in games)

Firstly I think a few of you have vented your spleen too much on the Willets move and it is now becoming a bad case of sour grapes.

However on the quote above you are spot on.

[Wedgie]

As long as the AFL clubs remember the SANFL holds their licenses and in essence the SANFL clubs own the AFL clubs putting them below the SANFL clubs in terms of importance. But the AFL clubs, well the Crows anyway, are a cash cow for their owners and the better they do the more $$$ goes back to the owners.

[Mickyj]

As long as the AFL clubs remember the SANFL holds their licenses and in essence the SANFL clubs own the AFL clubs putting them below the SANFL clubs in terms of importance. But the AFL clubs, well the Crows anyway, are a cash cow for their owners and the better they do the more $$$ goes back to the owners.

That sounds correct to me Wedgie. Would love to use that wedgie with your good wishes of course.

[bayman]

these are 3 players that have changed sanfl clubs (harwood twice), i know there is at least one more, (who i think was a crows player) but basically is the common denominator port ?? , perhaps port (chocko) is having or trying to have too much say, we all know chocko coaches/encourages the port players playing at sanfl level during the 1/4 & 3/4 time breaks

firstly, is it that port have or is trying to have too much to say on game day ?
2ndly, & should he or any afl coach be allowed to do that
3rdly, unless i'm wrong we (the sanfl) own port & adel, so we (sanfl) should be telling/dictating to them not the other way around

bayman says that all clubs should tell both teams to field their players elsewhere as it is no good for anyone & if you dont believe me look at centrals over the last few years very little impact from afl players & their unity & success is 2nd to none

& alledgedly boak as well

Why shouldn't their AFL coach have some say in proceedings? And to say it's only Port is ludicrous and very typical of a Glenelg supporter. Do you forget the problems Cornes had whilst coaching Adelaide? I thought so! He couldn't get Nunan, Craig etc to put blokes in positions he wanted, and actually said that the Magpies were the easiest to deal with.

If you're going to bag Port, at least do some research and get SOME of the facts right!

i'm actually talking about during the game & i agree craigs use of robran in particular was ordinary, but it should be commomsense the afl coach during the week should talk to the sanfl counterpart & not demand a player in a certain position but ask if he would try it if it doesn't affect the balance of his team & for what it is worth i do not barrack for the crows my team in the afl is what my money is on, the only team i barrack for is glenelg, but i still think it is wrong
for any afl coach to talk to players during games (at breaks in games)

Apart from not understanding most of your post due your misuse of the English language, I've managed to decipher that you actually think that it's NOT just Port, but both AFL clubs who have caused the isssue. I know for a FACT that some SANFL coaches have refused to take calls from their AFL counterparts. So what option do they have? Plus, how do you know that any advice given on a match day isn't just self esteem building stuff for the player and not criticism of his local coach? The ropes don't allow ytou to get close enough to hear what's being said in a quiet tone.

This kind of ruins your assertion with your original post.

ropes !!!, i'm talking about when the players are going back to their positions, you do not have to believe me just have a look at games when they are there

[Santos L Helper]

ropes !!!, i'm talking about when the players are going back to their positions, you do not have to believe me just have a look at games when they are there

I'm convinced you're making most of this up.

[bayman]

ropes !!!, i'm talking about when the players are going back to their positions, you do not have to believe me just have a look at games when they are there

I'm convinced you're making most of this up.

i'm not asking you to believe me, i'm asking you to look for yourself, i've seen it numerous times & it has happened with all clubs, i know for a fact mt79 has seen it because he's been with me when it has happened

[Coorong]

Might have happened at the Bays as you have not had a coach or GM of note for the past 5 years.

Come to think of it.....or a board of management.

[bayman]

Might have happened at the Bays as you have not had a coach or GM of note for the past 5 years.

Come to think of it.....or a board of management.

slightly harsh i think noble can coach but inbetween noble & mickan i'd agree

[am Bays]

Coorong, Coorong, Coorong.....

I can handle most clubs giving us sh!t about coaches, boards of management and GMs but having read your stuff on teh Westies forum and here......

Do you not think you are being a little bit tiny winy hypocritical as a Bloods supporter going on about General Managers?????

You haven't had an "effective" board of management until 2006 as we all know the previous boards of management at Westies have been as effective as a pocket on singlet for 25 years as well all know where the decisions were made.....

Coaches yes well we have turned 'em over in the 90s, but you have been turining 'em over since Fos, save for five years with Kerls in the 80s.....

Even from you, I'll cop the coaching sledge as it has been nothing short of disgraceful some of the coaching selections and turnovers since 1990, but mate, you are on really thin ice once you start bringing General Managers and Boards of Management into the debate especially when you add in the adjective "effective"....

[Wedgie]

Coorong, Coorong, Coorong.....

I can handle most clubs giving us sh!t about coaches, boards of management and GMs but having read your stuff on teh Westies forum and here......

Do you not think you are being a little bit tiny winy hypocritical as a Bloods supporter going on about General Managers?????

You haven't had an "effective" board of management until 2006 as we all know the previous boards of management at Westies have been as effective as a pocket on singlet for 25 years as well all know where the decisions were made.....

Coaches yes well we have turned 'em over in the 90s, but you have been turining 'em over since Fos, save for five years with Kerls in the 80s.....

Even from you, I'll cop the coaching sledge as it has been nothing short of disgraceful some of the coaching selections and turnovers since 1990, but mate, you are on really thin ice once you start bringing General Managers and Boards of Management into the debate especially when you add in the adjective "effective"....

Can I sledge Glenelg instead then?

[am Bays]

As if any I say is going to stop you??

When have you ever asked permission to do so...

[Wedgie]

As if any I say is going to stop you??

When have you ever asked permission to do so...

Cool!

Glenelg suck, their coaches suck, their CEOs suck, their board members suck, their players suck, their supporters suck.
And most importantly their 3 Grand Final wins against North suck the most!

[Dissident]

As long as the AFL clubs remember the SANFL holds their licenses and in essence the SANFL clubs own the AFL clubs putting them below the SANFL clubs in terms of importance. But the AFL clubs, well the Crows anyway, are a cash cow for their owners and the better they do the more $$$ goes back to the owners.

Sounds slightly off maybe??
The SANFL owns the licence to the two AFL clubs - and the SANFL also owns the SANFL competition. I guess they'd be on even keel when it comes to who's more important but when money is involved ... well!!

Although I could be wrong... that was my interpretation though

[am Bays]

And most importantly their 3 Grand Final wins against North suck the most!

Well that depends on how you look at them!!!